Static Analysis For Verification Of Software Program Access To Secure Resources For Computer Systems

ABSTRACT

A method includes, using a static analysis, analyzing a software program to determine whether the software program accesses a secure resource for a computer system without verification that the secure resource can be accessed by the software program. The method also includes, in response to an access by the software program to the secure resource without verification that the secure resource can be accessed by the software program, outputting a result indicative of the analyzing. Computer program products and apparatus are also disclosed. An apparatus is disclosed that includes a user interface providing a security report to a user, the security report indicating a result of an analysis of whether or not a software program accesses a secure resource for a computer system without verification that the secure resource can be accessed by the software program.

BACKGROUND

This invention relates generally to analysis of software programs suchas object code, bytecode, executable code, and libraries, and, morespecifically, relates to static analysis of software programs.

Computer systems have secure resources (also called “protected”resources) where security to the protected resource is important. Forexample, it is beneficial to control access to a network socket (e.g.,an endpoint for a communication flow across a computer network), asviruses and other malicious software programs can use a socket to sendand receive data, potentially without a user's knowledge. Similarly,certain operating system and other files should be similarly controlled.Therefore, it would be beneficial to determine whether a softwareprogram is allowed to access a protected resource prior to the access.

Along these lines, the Principle of Complete Mediation dictates thataccess to any secure resource (also called a “protected” resource) for acomputer system should be preceded by an appropriate verification check.Before a protected resource (e.g., a file or socket as in traditionalaccess control, or even a method as in Role-Based Access Control) isaccessed, a system enforces security by verifying that the entitiesresponsible for that access are sufficiently verified. Such verificationcan include, e.g., authentication (e.g., the entity is the entity itsays it is) or authorization (e.g., the entity is allowed to access thesecure resource), or both. Such entities can include the user runningthe system as well as system-component providers.

Modern computer systems install a special access-control enforcer forverification, commonly called the “security manager”. A problem thatarises with access-control enforcement is that such enforcement isexpensive. Therefore, verification systems tend to cache authorizationchecks.

This can lead to another problem because by the time a resource isaccessed, the relevant verification check in the cache may no longer bevalid, and a Time Of Check To Time Of Use (TOCTTOU) attack is possible.That is, at the time the verification, code for a software programverifies access to a first secure resource using a reference (e.g., apointer) to the first secure resource. At the time an access is made toa secure resource using the pointer, the value of the pointer haschanged and now points to a different secure resource for whichauthorization was not verified. It is also possible for theauthorization mechanism to have not been correctly implemented and so,even when the authorization mechanism is supposed to enforceauthorization for a particular resource, in reality the authorizationmechanism is not doing so properly, or maybe the authorization mechanismis doing that for a resource that is not the intended one. As aconsequence, a verification for the secure resource that is about to beaccessed has not been performed, and such secure resource is thereforeaccessed without a verification check.

There are a few techniques for improving verification of access bysoftware programs to secure resources for computer systems. The mostlabor intensive and least likely to produce adequate results is manualcode inspection: a person checks every line of a software program forverification of access to secure resources.

Another technique is dynamic testing of the software program. Thisanalysis involves executing the program and observing whether secureresources are accessed without verification. One problem with thistechnique is the technique is not conservative: a reported problem is areal problem (no false positives), but the result is potentiallyunsound, meaning that some real problems may not be discovered by theanalysis (false negatives). For example, an access to a secure resourcecould be dependent on a value of a variable. Many of the values of thevariable do not cause inappropriate access to a secure resource, whereasa single value of the variable may cause inappropriate access to asecure resource. A particular runtime environment may not adequatelytest all possible values of the variable, and therefore miss theinappropriate access to a secure resource.

In contrast to dynamic analysis of a software program, a static analysisof a software program evaluates the program statically and the programis not executed during this process. Certain models (such as call graphsand points-to graphs) may be created from the software program, based ona line-by-line interpretation of the program. Such models may beanalyzed to determine information about the software program.

The inventors have realized that there are certain benefits in applyingstatic analysis of a software program to an analysis for verification ofsoftware program access to secure resources for computer systems,especially when it comes to security analysis, in which case it isessential not to miss any security issue. Such benefits overcome thepreviously described problems, especially with the dynamic analysis ofsoftware programs.

SUMMARY

In an aspect of the invention, a method includes, using a staticanalysis, analyzing a software program to determine whether the softwareprogram accesses a secure resource for a computer system withoutverification that the secure resource can be accessed by the softwareprogram. The method also includes, in response to an access by thesoftware program to the secure resource without verification that thesecure resource can be accessed by the software program, outputting aresult indicative of the analyzing. In other exemplary embodiments,computer program products and apparatus are also disclosed.

In another aspect of the invention, an apparatus is disclosed thatincludes a user interface providing a security report to a user, thesecurity report indicating a result of an analysis of whether or not asoftware program accesses a secure resource for a computer systemwithout verification that the secure resource can be accessed by thesoftware program.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a call graph of a program, where the call graph is used toillustrate problems with security of secure resources in a computersystem;

FIG. 2 is an exemplary illustration of a logical framework forverification of software program access to secure resources for computersystems;

FIG. 3 is an exemplary computer system for verification of softwareprogram access to secure resources for computer systems;

FIG. 4 is an exemplary flowchart for verification using static analysisof software program access to secure resources for computer systems, andperforming such verification as a service to a customer;

FIG. 5 is an example of a call graph for an exemplary software program,used to illustrate exemplary analysis for missing verification checks;

FIG. 6 is a more detailed version of FIG. 5, and includes an additionalmethod not shown in FIG. 5;

FIG. 7 is a flowchart of an exemplary method for an analysis of asoftware program for missing verification checks;

FIG. 8A is an exemplary call graph used to illustrate analysis forverification checks that are present but invalid at time of access to asecure resource;

FIG. 8B shows exemplary values for pointers p1 and p2 from FIG. 8A;

FIG. 9 is a flowchart of an exemplary method for determining andreporting on verification checks that are present but invalid at time ofaccess to a secure resource;

FIGS. 10A and 10B are examples of a user interface displaying securityreports;

FIG. 11 is a flowchart of an exemplary method for performingverification using static analysis of software program access to secureresources for a computer system, where the verification is performedprior to executing the software program on a computer system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

As described above, the inventors have realized that there are benefitsin applying static analysis of a software program to an analysis forverification of software program access to secure resources for computersystems. Such benefits include that a result of a static analysis ispotentially conservative, meaning that not all the reported problems arereal problems (false positives), but at least all the problems of theprogram under analysis are detected (no false negatives). In otherwords, the analysis results are theoretically sound, which means thatall real problems will be found. These exemplary benefits aresignificant benefits relative to the manual code inspection and dynamicanalysis previously described, especially when the purpose of theanalysis is to detect security problems—in which case it is desirablenot to miss any of them.

Before proceeding with additional description of the exemplaryembodiments of the invention, it is helpful to provide description ofproblems associated with verification of access to secure resources. Interms of the Principle of Complete Mediation, it has been said that“[e]very access to every object must be checked for authority”. However,different systems may have: (1) Different resources that need to beprotected; and (2) Different ways to protect those resources. Therefore,the problem is system-specific.

Turning now to FIG. 1, a call graph 100 is shown of a software programthat is used to illustrate these points. In FIG. 1, Client.main( ) wouldlike to access a secure resource 110 (in this example, a file 110-1, asocket 110-2, a method 110-3, an object or another program 110-4, etc.).Secure resource 110 is a resource that is accessible by a computer andmay be remote from the computer (e.g., accessed via a network) orcontained within the physical confines of the computer. A “secure”resource 110 is deemed secure by, e.g., the system at hand or by acustomer providing a list of secure resources (described in more detailbelow) or by some combination of these. Secure resources can also beinferred statically by detecting which resources are guarded by somesecurity checks. Some resources may be guarded by security checks insome cases but not in other cases, and one of the purposes of thisinvention is to detect the cases in which security checks have not beeninserted.

A pathway through the software program that provides for verificationincludes edges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. In this path, Client.main( ) calls(edge 1) method m1( ), which then calls (edge 2) checkPermission( ),which verifies that Client.main( ) is allowed to access the resource110. The checkPermission( ) reports (edge 3) the verification back tomethod m1( ), which then accesses the secure resource 110 via (edge 4)getResource( ). The method getResource( ) returns (edge 5) to m1( ),which returns (edge 6) to Client.main( ), e.g., with data from thesecure resource 110. It is noted that the method getResource( ) may alsobe considered to be a secure resource, as once this method is accessed,the secure resource 110 may be accessed.

A pathway through the software program that does not provide forverification includes edge 7 through edge 12. In this path, theClient.main( ) calls method m2( ), which calls m3( ), which accesses thesecure resource 110 via getResource( ). There is no verificationperformed prior to access of the secure resource 110 in the pathincluding edges 7 through 12.

This example illustrates why more is needed than simply a call graph 100to determine whether verification occurs prior to access of the secureresource 110. For instance, a call graph does not typically provide theorder of occurrence of edges. Instead, the numbering of edges in FIG. 1is for illustration. Another problem with call graph 100 is that therecould be potential pathways where verification might be performed. Forinstance, the path that includes edges 7, 8, 9, 5, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and12 is at least theoretically a pathway where verification might beperformed. Thus, additional techniques (described below) are used toensure verification.

Another problem, briefly described in reference to FIG. 1 and describedbelow in more detail in reference to FIGS. 8A and 8B, relates to Time OfCheck To Time Of Use (TOCTTOU) attacks. In brief, when checkPermission() performs its verification of Client.main( ), checkPermission( ) usesreference (e.g., a pointer) p1 to the secure resource 110. Between thetime when Client.main( ) is verified to access the secure resource 110pointed to by p1 and the time getResource( ) accesses the secureresource 110 by using p2 (e.g., a later version of p1), if p1 is notequal to p2, p2 now potentially references a different secure resource110. This means a verification for access to the secure resource 110referenced by p2 may not have been performed.

Exemplary embodiments of the invention include an algorithm that can beused to identify potential violations of the Principle of CompleteMediation in different systems. The exemplary embodiments are flexibleand configurable and verify complete mediation for different resourcesand with different authorization checks. The exemplary embodimentssupport both open-world and closed-world. “Open-world” means that asoftware program is incomplete. For instance, the library shown in FIG.1 is incomplete, but can be analyzed as an incomplete program.“Closed-world” is a complete program, such as the combination of thelibrary and client shown in FIG. 1.

The exemplary embodiments are precise: they are theoretically sound andconservative. The exemplary embodiments may verify that every access toa secure resource is mediated by a verification check. In an exemplaryembodiment, a verification and analysis tool is built on a WALA (T. J.Watson Libraries for Analysis) static analysis tool (also referred to asan engine). An exemplary embodiment analyzes JAVA (a programminglanguage and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in1995) programs, but the techniques can be applied to non-JAVA programsas well.

Turning to FIG. 2, an exemplary illustration of a logical framework isshown for verification of software program access to secure resourcesfor computer systems. A static analysis tool 220 accepts input 210 of(in this example) object code 210-1, which is the complete or incompletesoftware program to be examined, one or more remote interface names210-2, which are programmatic specifications of the methods exposed by aclass to its clients, one or more secure resource(s) 210-3 (e.g.,indications of secure resources 110) for which access is to becontrolled, and one or more verification checker(s) 210-4 that controlaccess to the secure resources 210-3. There may also be a mapping 270that indicates which verification checker 210-4 should be used forverifying access to a secure resource 210-3. For instance, in theexamples of FIGS. 5 and 6, the mapping 270 could indicate that theSecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( ) verification checker 210-4 is theverification checker 210-4 for the secure resources 210-3 of bean1.m1( )and bean2.m2( ). The mapping 270 may be used for analysis and reporting(e.g., “SecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( ) is not called before an access tobean2.m2( ) by otherMethod( )”).

In an exemplary embodiment, the static analysis tool 220 generates acall graph 280, a points-to graph 240, and an Interprocedural, Finite,Distributive, Subset (IFDS) framework 250 using the object code 210-1.In an exemplary embodiment, the static analysis tool 220 is a WALA (T.J. Watson Libraries for Analysis) static analysis tool. The verificationand analysis tool 230 casts the complete mediation problem into an IFDSproblem. In other words, the complete mediation is modeled as aninterprocedural control-flow graph reachability problem.

The verification and analysis tool 230, in various embodiments, uses thecall graph 280, the points-to graph 240, and IFDS framework 250, alongwith the remote interface names 210-2, the secure resources 210-3, andthe verification checkers 210-4 (and any mapping 270) to generate anoutput 240 that in an example includes one or more security reports 241.The security reports 241 include a result of the analysis by theverification and analysis tool 230 and are described in more detailbelow.

The verification checkers 210-1 can include authentication checkers260-1 and authorization checkers 260-2. An authentication checker 260-1can determine whether the entity is the entity it says it is, such as bycomparing a provided user identification and password with a list ofuser identifications and passwords. Authorization checkers 260-2 candetermine, e.g., whether an entity is allowed to access the secureresource 210-3, such as by comparing a name of a subject requestingaccess to a secure resource 210-3 with a list of names allowed to accessthe secure resource 210-3.

Turning now to FIG. 3 (with reference to previous figures), an exemplarycomputer system 300 is shown that implements verification of softwareprogram access to secure resources for computer systems. The computersystem 300 may be a client system, a server, a mobile device (e.g.,cellular phone, wireless network device, and the like), or any othertype of system able to analyze software programs. The computer system300 in this example includes one or more memories 310, one or moredisplays 320 (which may also be separate from computer system 300), oneor more network interfaces 330, and one or more processors 340. The oneor more memories 310 include instructions 350, which when executed bythe one or more processors 340, cause the computer system 300 tocomplete any or all of the actions described herein. In an exemplaryembodiment, the display 320 is used to view the security report 241 viaa user interface 390. In another exemplary embodiment, the securityreport 241 is sent (e.g., via network interface 330) to a customer, andthe inputs 210 are also received (e.g., via network interface 330) froma customer. The network interface 330 could include wired and/orwireless interfaces.

It is noted that the secure resources 210-3 may be completely definedvia input 210. In other words, e.g., a customer can define via a list ofsecure resources 210-3 the secure resources to be verified. In otherexamples, certain objects, files, sockets, and methods are predeterminedto be secure resources and the customer may define only a portion of thesecure resource 210-3. For example, network sockets might be knownsecure resources 210-3. Another example would be that certain or allJAVA beans are considered to be secure resources 210-3.

The software program 360 to be analyzed may be, e.g., object code 210-1,source code, byte code, library modules (such as those shown in FIGS. 1and 8A), application code, and the like. The software program 360 couldbe a complete program or an incomplete program.

Referring to FIG. 4 (with appropriate reference to previous figures), anexemplary flowchart 400 is shown for verification of software programaccess to secure resources for computer systems, and performing suchverification as a service to a customer. In block 410, a softwareprogram 360 is received from a customer. Additional constraints, such asthe input 210 (e.g., remote interface names 210-2, secure resources210-3, and verification checkers 210-4) may also be received. In block420, using a static analysis, a software program is analyzed (e.g., byverification and analysis tool 230) to determine whether the softwareprogram 360 accesses a secure resource 210-3 for a computer system 300without verification that the secure resource 210-3 can be accessed bythe software program 360. In block 430, a result (e.g., security report241) is output, where the result is indicative of the analyzingperformed in block 420. In block 440, the outputted result iscommunicated to the customer.

Block 420 may be performed in a number of ways, described in more detailbelow. Briefly, exemplary static analysis solutions herein detectwhether (1) verification checks are missing (block 450; see also FIGS.5-7 and associated text), or (2) verification checks are present but maybe invalid due to the possibility of a resource (or a reference thereto)changing between verification-enforcement and access (block 460; seealso FIGS. 8A, 8B, and 9 and associated text).

An exemplary embodiment for (1) is based on the IFDS algorithm: everyprotected resource is mapped to a dataflow fact instantiated at callsites in program entry points. Facts are propagated throughout theprogram and killed only on normal exits of authorization checks (e.g.,they are not killed on exceptional exits). If the entry point of aresource access receives the relevant dataflow fact, the verificationand analysis tool 230 reports a potential problem: there may exist apath that leads to the protected resource without a verification check.

As an exemplary embodiment for (2), the problem may be treated on acase-by-case basis. For example, using dataflow propagation, theverification and analysis tool 230 detects that the name of a protectedfile and the mode of access cannot be changed between the timeverification (e.g., authorization) is enforced and access is made.Illustratively, for a socket, the verification and analysis tool 230detects that the hostname, port number and mode of access do not changebetween the time the authorization is enforced and access is made.

FIGS. 5-7 are used to illustrate static analysis of a software program360 for missing verification checks. Turning now to these figures, FIG.5 is an example of a call graph 500 for an exemplary software program300. FIG. 6 is a more detailed version of FIG. 5, and includes anadditional method not shown in FIG. 5. The more detailed version 600 inFIG. 6 of call graph 500 includes the method otherMethod( ) not shown inFIG. 5. FIG. 7 is a flowchart of an exemplary method 700 for an analysisof a software program for missing verification checks. Method 700 isperformed in an exemplary embodiment by the verification and analysistool 230. It is noted that in FIG. 6, the dashed and solid lines areused to distinguish the edges.

In the example of FIGS. 5 and 6, the objects (and their methods)bean1.m1( ) and bean2.m2( ) are the secure resources 210-3, and theverification and analysis tool 230 is to analyze the software program360 corresponding to the call graph 500 to ensure that verificationoccurs for each access to the objects bean1.m1( ) and bean2.m2( ). Thecall graph 500 and detailed version 600 are created by static analysistool 220.

Paths through the call graph 500 that adhere to verification (that is,verification is performed prior to access of the secure resourcesbean1.m1( ) and bean2.m2( )) include a first path 510-1 having edges (inthis order) of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The verification checker210-4 is the SecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( ) object, and this object iscalled and verification is performed (prior to edge 4) by theverification checker 210-4 prior to access (edge 6) of the secureresource 210-3 bean1.m1( ). The paths also include a second path 510-2having edges (in this order) of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.The verification checker 210-4 of SecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( ) iscalled and verification is performed (prior to edge 12) by theverification checker 210-4 prior to access (edge 14) of the secureresource 210-3 bean1.m1( ).

As described below, FIG. 6 includes these two paths 510-1 and 510-2, butalso include a third path 510-3 having edges 17, 18, 19, and 20, whereaccess to the secure resource 210-3 is performed without going through acorresponding verification check (e.g., by verification checker 210-4 ofthe SecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( )).

In block 710 of method 700, every secure resource 210-4 is mapped to adata flow fact. In the example of FIG. 6, the data flow fact setincludes D={m1, m2, . . . , A, Ex}. The fact m1 indicates that thesoftware program has not passed through beanWrapper.m1( ); the fact m2indicates that the software program not passed through beanWrapper.m2(); the fact A indicates that an authorization check was not performed;and the fact Ex indicates that an exception was thrown. The secureresource 210-3, via input 210, provides the secure resources to beexamined and in one example would contain indications that bean1.m1( )and bean2.m2( ) objects are secure resource 210-3. This allows the factsm1 and m2 to be generated and these facts correspond to thebeanWrapper.m1( ) and beanWrapper.m2( ) objects, since these objects arethe defined gateways to their corresponding secure resources bean1.m1( )and bean2.m2( ), according to a security-system specification. In otherexamples, certain objects, files, sockets, and methods (and potentiallyany other objects/methods that access, e.g., the objects, files,sockets, and methods) are predetermined to be secure resources. Forexample, no input 210 need be provided to define certain sockets assecure resources 210-3. Similarly, no input 210 need be provided in theexample of FIG. 6 because the bean1.m1( ) and bean2.m2( ) are enterpriseJAVA beans (EJB in “EJBContainer”) and enterprise JAVA beans are (in anexemplary embodiment) by definition secure resource 210-3.

In other words, mapping may be performed by defining a method fact foreach secure resource 210-3 and a verification fact (e.g., “A” in FIG. 6)for each verification checker 210-4 (in this example,SecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( )). The example of FIG. 6 uses authorizationas one type of verification, and therefore the verification fact is anauthorization fact “A”. Additionally, any exceptions by the verificationchecker 210-4 are captured by defining in the mapping an exception fact(e.g., “Ex” in FIG. 6). Generation of an exception without acorresponding killing of an authorization fact indicates that a secureresource 210-3 was not properly authorized.

If D is the (finite) set of data-flow facts as defined above, weindicate with 2^(D) the power set of D, meaning the set of the subsetsof D. 2^(D) is finite because D itself is finite. 2^(D) is naturallyequipped with the union operator, ∪. In fact, the pair (2^(D), ∪) isknown to be a semi-lattice. At every step in the propagation system,elements of 2^(D) are propagated throughout the IFDS graph, and at eachstep of the propagation, set unions are performed (except in the case inwhich a data-flow fact is killed). This means that the function that,for each IFDS graph node, transforms the set of data-flow factsassociated with that node into a more precise set on each iteration ofthe propagation process is monotonic. Since the (2^(D), ∪) semilatticeis finite, it is complete and has finite height. Therefore, thepropagation process can be proved (using the well-known result ofTarski's theorem) to converge in finite time. In this case, the timecomplexity of this algorithm is O(ED³) as shown in the IFDS originalpaper, published at the ACM Symposium on Principles of ProgrammingLanguages (POPL) 1995 by Thomas Reps, Susan Howitz and Shmuel Sagiv.

Additionally in block 710, the data flow facts are instantiated at callsites in program entry points (e.g., for procedure calls within thesoftware program entry points). For example, at the beanWrapper.m1( )call site in program entry point Client.main( ), the data fact set of{m1, m2, A} is generated, e.g., by the verification and analysis tool230: GEN {m1, m2, A}. This also occurs at the call sites for thebeanWrapper.m2( ) and the otherMethod( ).

In block 720, the data flow facts are propagated through the call graph.For instance, in path 510-1, the data flow facts of {m1, m2, A} arepropagated through this path. At edge 2, the data flow fact m1 is“killed”, and this indicates beanWrapper.m1( ) was passed through. Atedge 4, the authorization fact A is also killed, which means thatverification has been performed. At entry (edge 6) into bean1.m1( ), thedata flow fact m2 still exists, but m1 and A are both killed, whichmeans that authorization for bean1.m1( ) has been performed prior toentry into this specific secure resource 210-3 of bean1.m1( ). That is,the data facts that correspond to the bean1.m1( ) object are killed, andthis indicates that verification was performed prior to entry tobean1.m1( ). In this example, block 730 (access to a secure resourcewithout verification?) would be NO and block 750 would be performed.Because propagation is not complete, method 700 continues at block 720.

With regard to path 510-2, at edge 10, the data flow fact m2 is killed,which means beanWrapper.m2( ) was passed through. At edge 12, theauthorization fact A is also killed, which means that verification hasbeen performed. At entry (edge 14) into bean2.m2( ), the data flow factm2 still exists, but m1 and A are both killed, which means thatauthorization for bean2.m2( ) has been performed prior to entry into thespecific secure resource 210-3 of bean2.m2( ). That is, the data factsthat correspond to the bean2.m2( ) object are killed, and this indicatesthat verification was performed prior to entry to bean2.m2( ). In thisexample, block 730 (access to a secure resource without verification?)would be NO and block 750 would be performed. Because propagation is notcomplete, method 700 continues at block 720.

Regarding path 510-3, at edge 18, bean2.m2( ) is entered with the dataflow fact set of {m1, m2, and A}, as no method facts or theauthorization fact were killed. The answer to the query in block 730(access to a secure resource without verification?) would be YES andblock 740 would be performed. The calling object (otherMethod( )) andlocation (e.g., line number) where the calling object called thebean2.m2( ) object are recorded in block 740. Block 750 is performedagain. Because propagation is not complete, method 700 continues atblock 720.

This process continues until the entire program has been examined. Then,block 750 would be YES, and in block 760, the verification and analysistool 230 outputs results indicative of the analysis. As an example, theoutput could indicate that there was no verification for the method callfrom otherMethod( ) to beanWrapper.m2( ).

FIGS. 5-7 have been used to illustrate exemplary static analysissolutions to detect whether verification checks are missing. FIGS. 8A,8B, and 9 are used to illustrate exemplary static analysis for whetherverification checks are present but may be invalid due to thepossibility of a resource (or a reference or other information definingaccess to the resource) changing between verification-enforcement andaccess.

Turning to FIGS. 8A, 8B, and 9, FIG. 8A is an exemplary call graph 800used to illustrate analysis for verification checks that are present butinvalid at time of access to a secure resource. FIG. 8B shows exemplaryvalues for pointers p1 and p2 from FIG. 8A. FIG. 9 is a flowchart of anexemplary method 900 (performed, e.g., by verification and analysis tool230) for determining and reporting on verification checks that arepresent but invalid at time of access to a secure resource.

It is important to verify that the verification check was performedspecifically for the secure resource 210-3 being accessed. Therelationship between the secure resource 210-3 and the verificationcheck is system specific, but in general the verification requirescomparing objects. In some systems, the system expects the object beingchecked to be the same as the one being accessed. This may or may not betrue. In other cases (e.g., JAVA 2 platform, standard edition), theobject being accessed (e.g., the name of a file) is assigned to a fieldof the object being checked (e.g., a FilePermission). If the name of thefile is modified between the time of verification and the time ofaccess, then a file could be accessed without verification.

FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate these concepts. In FIG. 8A, the access togetResource( ) is verified, as there is a call to checkPermission( )first, which performs verification. The object checkPermission( ) usesthe pointer p1, which is a pointer to a secure resource 210-3. However,the object getResource( ) uses the pointer p2, which may or may not beequivalent to p1. If the pointers p1 and p2 are the same, then thesecure resource 210-3 that was verified by checkPermission( ) is thesame as that accessed by getResource( ). If as illustrated by FIG. 8B,however, the two pointers p1 and p2 are not the same, then the analysisshould verify which resources each pointer can point to, and a potentialerror should be generated, as a different secure resource 210-3 might beaccessed than the secure resource 210-3 that was verified.

FIG. 8B shows that pointer p1 can reference a single secure resource210-3 r1, or multiple secure resources 210-3 r1 and r2 (as examples). Ifpointer p2 is equivalent to p1 for the one or more references to thesecure resources 210-3, then no error should occur. No potential erroris indicated in FIG. 8B by “OK”. On the other hand, if the pointer p2 isnot equivalent to p1 for the one or more references to the secureresources 210-3, then an indication of a potential error should be made.A potential error is indicated by “NO”. The first case in FIG. 8B doesnot lead to any potential error because the analysis has establishedthat both p1 and p2 point to the same resource r1. This means that whenr1 is accessed, access to it has already been authorized. Since theanalysis is conservative, there is no chance that p1 or p2 could pointto something other than r1, or the analysis would have reported that.The second case in FIG. 8B is an error because the resource beingaccessed (r2) is different from the resource to which access wasauthorized (r1). The third case in FIG. 8B represents a potential errorbecause the resource that is accessed might be r2, whereas the resourceto which access was authorized is r1. The fourth case in FIG. 8B is alsoa potential error because the system might have authorized access to r2,while the resource being accessed is r1. For the fifth case, theanalysis computes the same set of resources that can be pointed to by p1and p2. Unlike case 1, such set contains more than just one element. Inthe specific case of FIG. 8B, two elements are in the set: r1 and r2.There could potentially be a problem if the system authorizes access tor1 but then r2 is accessed, or vice versa access to r2 is authorized andthen r1 is accessed. This ambiguity can be resolved with the use ofstatic analysis, by verifying that the resources are correctly matched.

Method 900 starts in block 910, where every secure resource is mapped toa data flow fact instantiated at call sites in program entry points. Themapping and instantiation have been described above in reference toblock 710. In block 915, data flow facts are propagated through the callgraph. This propagation is also described above in reference to FIG. 7.

In block 920, it is determined if there is entry to a verificationchecker 210-4 that corresponds to a secure resource 210-3. For example,in FIG. 6, at edge 3 and entry into SecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( ), thereis an entry to the verification checker 210-4 that corresponds to thesecure resource 210-3 of bean1.m1( ). As another FIG. 6 example, at edge11 and entry into SecurityEnforcer.preInvoke( ), there is an entry tothe verification checker 210-4 that corresponds to the secure resource210-3 of bean2.m2( ). If there is no entry to a verification checker210-4 (block 920=NO), the method 900 proceeds to block 970.

If there is an entry to a verification checker 210-4, using thepoints-to graph 240, the verification and analysis tool 230 records areference to the secure resource 210-3 (e.g., a name of a file) and modeof access (e.g., “read”, “write”, “execute”, or “delete”) in block 935.It is noted that in this block any information that uniquely referencesa secure resource 210-3 may be used. For instance, a port number mightbe used for a network socket, and such a port number could also berecorded.

In block 940, it is determined if there is an access to a secureresource 210-3. If not (block 940=NO), the method 900 proceeds in block970. If so (block 940=YES), in block 945, the verification and analysistool 230 uses the points-to graph 240 and compares the recordedreference and mode of access for the secure resource 210-3 with thecurrent reference and mode of access for the secure resource 210-3. Asdescribed above, it is noted that in this block any information thatuniquely references a secure resource 210-3 may be used. For instance, aport number might be used for a network socket, and such a port numbercould also be compared. If the reference and the mode of access have notchanged (block 950=NO), the access is “marked” as valid in block 955. Itshould be noted that no “mark” need be made; instead, no action need betaken. If the reference or the mode of access has changed (block950=YES), the calling object and location is recorded in block 960. Thisallows a later output indicating that there is a potential error in thecalling object at the location therein.

In block 970, it is determined if the propagation is complete. If not(block 970=NO), the method 900 continues in block 915. If so (block970=YES), the method 900 continues in block 980, when the verificationand analysis tool 230 outputs results indicative of the analysis.

One technique for outputting results indicative of the analysis (see,e.g., blocks 440 of FIG. 4, 760 of FIGS. 7, and 970 of FIG. 9), is via asecurity report 241. FIGS. 10A and 10B are examples of user interfaces390 displaying security reports 241 (e.g., to a user). FIG. 10A is anerror free example, where there were no accesses to secure resourceswithout verification and also all accesses to secure resources werevalid.

In FIG. 10B, which refers to the example in FIG. 6, there is anindication of an error of an access to a secure resource 210-3 withoutverification: “Access to secure resource bean2.m2( ) occurs on line 112of otherMethod( ) without verification”. Note also that a recommendationis made: “Recommend calling EJBContainer.preInvoke( ) prior to line112”. This recommendation can be made because the verification andanalysis tool 230 knows the proper verification checker 210-4 for thesecure resource 210-3. Additionally, FIG. 10B has an example where averification check is present but may be invalid due to a resourcechanging between verification-enforcement and access: “Invalidverification occurs on line 1034 of otherMethod( ): resource r 1 waspreviously verified, but resource r2 is used as p2 in getResource(p2) online 1034.”

Turning now to FIG. 11, a flowchart is shown of an exemplary method 1100for performing verification using static analysis of software programaccess to secure resources for a computer system, where the verificationis performed prior to executing the software program on a computersystem. Method 1100 is typically performed by verification and analysistool 230. In block 1110, the verification and analysis tool 230 accessesa software program, such as by receiving the software program vianetwork interface 230 (block 1105) or via an installation program (e.g.,or process) (block 1106). Such installation program could be resident inmemory 310, such as via a CDROM or DVD or memory stick. In block 1115,using a static analysis, the verification and analysis tool 230 analyzesthe software program to determine whether the software program accessesa secure resource for a computer system without verification that thesecure resource can be accessed by the software program. This isexplained above, e.g., in reference to FIGS. 5, 6, 7, 8A, 8B, and 9.

In block 1120, it is determined if there is an access to a secureresource 210-3 without verification. Techniques for this determinationhave been described above. It is noted that in this instance, the secureresources 210-3 and verification checker 210-4 would likely bepredetermined and not included as input 210. However, these could alsobe included, for instance, as part of an installation package.

If there is no access to secure resources without verification (block1120=NO), the verification and analysis tool 230 can optionally report(e.g., to an operating system or to a user) that the software programcan be executed on the computer system (block 1125). Block 1125therefore may report to a user, via user interface 390, that thesoftware program has been analyzed and appears safe for execution. Thesoftware program is then allowed (e.g., by the operating system or bythe verification and analysis tool 230) to execute on the computersystem (block 1130).

If there is an access to a secure resource 210-3 without verification(block 1120=YES), in block 1140, the verification and analysis tool 230reports (e.g., via user interface 390 and/or to an operating system)that the software program should not be executed on the computer system(e.g., because the software program failed an analysis attempting toverify that the software program did not access secure resources 210-3without verification). In block 1145, the software program is preventedfrom executing on the computer system. The operating system and/or theverification and analysis tool 230 can prevent the software program fromexecuting.

As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the presentinvention may be embodied as a system, method or computer programproduct. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the formof an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment(including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or anembodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may allgenerally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.”Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of acomputer program product embodied in one or more computer readablemedium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.

Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may beutilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer readable signalmedium or a computer readable storage medium. A computer readablestorage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic,magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system,apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. Morespecific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readablestorage medium would include the following: an electrical connectionhaving one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, arandom access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasableprogrammable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber,a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storagedevice, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of theforegoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storagemedium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a programfor use by or in connection with an instruction execution system,apparatus, or device.

A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signalwith computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, inbaseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may takeany of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to,electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. Acomputer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium thatis not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate,propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with aninstruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmittedusing any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless,wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination ofthe foregoing.

Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of thepresent invention may be written in any combination of one or moreprogramming languages, including an object oriented programming languagesuch as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional proceduralprogramming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similarprogramming languages. The program code may execute entirely on theuser's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alonesoftware package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remotecomputer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latterscenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computerthrough any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or awide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an externalcomputer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet ServiceProvider).

Aspects of the present invention are described below with reference toflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus(systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of theinvention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchartillustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in theflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented bycomputer program instructions. These computer program instructions maybe provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, specialpurpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus toproduce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via theprocessor of the computer or other programmable data processingapparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified inthe flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.

These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computerreadable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable dataprocessing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particularmanner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readablemedium produce an article of manufacture including instructions whichimplement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks.

The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer,other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to causea series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, otherprogrammable apparatus or other devices to produce a computerimplemented process such that the instructions which execute on thecomputer or other programmable apparatus provide processes forimplementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particularembodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. Asused herein, the singular forms “a”, “an” and “the” are intended toinclude the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicatesotherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises”and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify thepresence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements,and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of oneor more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements,components, and/or groups thereof.

The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and equivalents of allmeans or step plus function elements in the claims below are intended toinclude any structure, material, or act for performing the function incombination with other claimed elements as specifically claimed. Thedescription of the present invention has been presented for purposes ofillustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive orlimited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications andvariations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the artwithout departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. Theembodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain theprinciples of the invention and the practical application, and to enableothers of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention forvarious embodiments with various modifications as are suited to theparticular use contemplated.

1. A method, comprising: using a static analysis, analyzing a softwareprogram to determine whether the software program accesses a secureresource for a computer system without verification that the secureresource can be accessed by the software program; and in response to anaccess by the software program to the secure resource withoutverification that the secure resource can be accessed by the softwareprogram, outputting a result indicative of the analyzing.
 2. The methodof claim 1, wherein the software program includes one or more of thefollowing: source code, byte code, library modules, application code, orobject code.
 3. The method of claim 1, where the verification isauthentication.
 4. The method of claim 1, where the verification isauthorization.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing isperformed for any and all accesses to secure resources made in thesoftware program.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing isperformed prior to the execution of the software program on the computersystem.
 7. The method of claim 6, further comprising preventing thesoftware program from executing on the computer system in response to anaccess by the software program to the secure resource withoutverification that the secure resource can be accessed by the softwareprogram.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the softwareprogram comprises determining whether a verification check is missingfor an access by the software program to the secure resource.
 9. Themethod of claim 8, wherein analyzing the software program comprises:mapping every secure resource to a data flow fact instantiated at one ormore call sites for procedure calls within the software program, thedata flow facts for each secure resource including a method factcorresponding to a method accessing the secure resource and averification fact corresponding to a verification checker thatcorresponds to the secure resource; propagating the data flow factsthrough a call graph of the software program; killing a method factcorresponding to a secure resource in response to entry into apredetermined method corresponding to a secure resource; killing averification fact corresponding to a verification checker thatcorresponds to a secure resource; for any access to a secure resourcewhere both a method fact corresponding to a predetermined methodcorresponding to the secure resource and a verification factcorresponding to a verification checker that corresponds to the secureresource are not killed at the access, determining that a verificationcheck is missing for the access by the software program to the secureresource.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the softwareprogram further comprises determining whether a verification check ispresent for an access by the software program to the secure resource butwhere the verification check is invalid due to at least one of areference to the secure resource or a method of access to the secureresource changing between verification by the verification check andaccess to the secure resource by the software program.
 11. The method ofclaim 10, wherein analyzing the software program further comprises: forexecution of a verification checker corresponding to a selected secureresource, using a points-to graph corresponding to the software program,recording a reference to the selected secure resource and recording amode of access to the selected secure resource; and for a subsequentaccess to the selected secure resource, determining whether one or bothof the reference to the selected secure resource or the mode of accessto the selected secure resource has been modified from the recordedreference to the selected secure resource and the recorded mode ofaccess to the selected secure resource; and in response to amodification of the one or both of the reference to the selected secureresource or the mode of access to the selected secure resource,determining that the verification check corresponding to the selectedsecure resource is invalid.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein thecomputer system is one of the following: a client system, a server, or amobile device.
 13. A computer program product, comprising: a computerreadable storage medium having computer readable program code embodiedtherewith, the computer readable program code comprising: computerreadable program code configured to, using a static analysis, analyze asoftware program to determine whether the software program accesses asecure resource for a computer system without verification that thesecure resource can be accessed by the software program; and computerreadable program code configured to, in response to an access by thesoftware program to the secure resource without verification that thesecure resource can be accessed by the software program, output a resultindicative of the analyzing.
 14. The computer program product of claim13, wherein the software program includes one or more of the following:source code, byte code, library modules, application code, or objectcode.
 15. The computer program product of claim 13, where theverification is authentication.
 16. The computer program product ofclaim 13, where the verification is authorization.
 17. The computerprogram product of claim 13, wherein the analysis is performed for anyand all accesses to secure resources made in the software program. 18.The computer program product of claim 13, wherein the analysis isperformed prior to the execution of the software program on the computersystem.
 19. The computer program product of claim 18, further comprisingcomputer readable program code configured to prevent the softwareprogram from executing on the computer system in response to an accessby the software program to the secure resource without verification thatthe secure resource can be accessed by the software program.
 20. Thecomputer program product of claim 13, wherein the analysis of thesoftware program comprises determining whether a verification check ismissing for an access by the software program to the secure resource.21. The computer program product of claim 20, wherein the analysis ofthe software program comprises: mapping every secure resource to a dataflow fact instantiated at one or more call sites for procedure callswithin the software program, data flow facts for each secure resourceincluding a method fact corresponding to a method accessing the secureresource and an authorization fact corresponding to a verificationchecker that corresponds to the secure resource; propagating the dataflow facts through a call graph of the software program; killing amethod fact corresponding to a secure resource in response to entry intoa predetermined method corresponding to a secure resource; killing anauthorization fact corresponding to a verification checker thatcorresponds to a secure resource; for any access to a secure resourcewhere both a method fact corresponding to a predetermined methodcorresponding to the secure resource and an authorization factcorresponding to a verification checker that corresponds to the secureresource are not killed at the access, determining that a verificationcheck is missing for the access by the software program to the secureresource.
 22. The computer program product of claim 13, wherein theanalysis of the software program further comprises determining whether averification check is present for an access by the software program tothe secure resource but where the verification check is invalid due toat least one of a reference to the secure resource or a method of accessto the secure resource changing between verification by the verificationcheck and access to the secure resource by the software program.
 23. Thecomputer program product of claim 22, wherein the analysis of thesoftware program further comprises: for execution of a verificationchecker corresponding to a selected secure resource, using a points-tograph corresponding to the software program, recording a reference tothe selected secure resource and recording a mode of access to theselected secure resource; and for a subsequent access to the selectedsecure resource, determining whether one or both of the reference to theselected secure resource or the mode of access to the selected secureresource has been modified from the recorded reference to the selectedsecure resource and the recorded mode of access to the selected secureresource; and in response to a modification of the one or both of thereference to the selected secure resource or the mode of access to theselected secure resource, determining that the verification checkcorresponding to the selected secure resource is invalid.
 24. Thecomputer program product of claim 13, wherein the computer system is oneof the following: a client system, a server, or a mobile device.
 25. Anapparatus, comprising: at least one memory comprising computer code; andat least one processor, wherein the computer code, when executed by theat least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least thefollowing: using a static analysis, analyzing a software program todetermine whether the software program accesses a secure resource for acomputer system without verification that the secure resource can beaccessed by the software program; and in response to an access by thesoftware program to the secure resource without verification that thesecure resource can be accessed by the software program, outputting aresult indicative of the analyzing.
 26. The apparatus of claim 25,wherein the apparatus is the computer system.
 27. The apparatus of claim25, wherein the apparatus is distinct from the computer system.
 28. Theapparatus of claim 25, wherein the analyzing is performed prior to theexecution of the software program on the computer system.
 29. Theapparatus of claim 25, wherein analyzing the software program comprisesdetermining whether a verification check is missing for an access by thesoftware program to the secure resource.
 30. The apparatus of claim 25,wherein analyzing the software program further comprises determiningwhether a verification check is present for an access by the softwareprogram to the secure resource but where the verification check isinvalid due to at least one of a reference to the secure resource or amethod of access to the secure resource changing between verification bythe verification check and access to the secure resource by the softwareprogram.
 31. The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the computer system isone of the following: a client system, a server, or a mobile device. 32.An apparatus, comprising: a user interface providing a security reportto a user, the security report indicating a result of an analysis ofwhether or not a software program accesses a secure resource for acomputer system without verification that the secure resource can beaccessed by the software program.
 33. The apparatus of claim 32, whereinthe analysis is performed prior to the execution of the software programon the computer system.
 34. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein theresult of the analysis indicates whether a verification check is missingfor an access by the software program to the secure resource.
 35. Theapparatus of claim 32, wherein the result of the analysis indicateswhether a verification check is present for an access by the softwareprogram to the secure resource but where the verification check isinvalid due to at least one of a reference to the secure resource or amethod of access to the secure resource changing between verification bythe verification check and access to the secure resource by the softwareprogram.
 36. An apparatus, comprising: means, using a static analysis,for analyzing a software program to determine whether the softwareprogram accesses a secure resource for a computer system withoutverification that the secure resource can be accessed by the softwareprogram; and means, responsive to an access by the software program tothe secure resource without verification that the secure resource can beaccessed by the software program, for outputting a result indicative ofthe analyzing.
 37. The apparatus of claim 36, wherein the means foroutputting comprises at least one of a display or a network interface.